Is Islam better supported than Christianity?

[WinePusher]

Please note that this is not meant to be a Q & A session about Islam.

Question: Is Islam better supported than Christianity?

Well, I'll get the ball rolling:

Islam makes false claims about the Historical Jesus:
1. An actual text supposedly given to Jesus from God, the Injil.
2. Jesus does not die on the Cross
3. Jesus speaks as a baby in order to rebuke people from slandering Mary.

Islam makes dubious claims about God:
1. Sin was not a choice of human free will, rather God created the world with sin.
2. God's power is limited by Islamic Dogma, God cannot take flesh because Muslims cannot fathom it.

Historical problems with the Qur'an:
1. Claimed to have been written by an illiterate.
2. The Qur'an is considered to be a perfect revelation from God, absolutly free from error, yet the reader can pick apart the book and find error after error and contradiction after contradiction.

[Murad]

Hello WinePusher, glad to see a post about Islam.
I wish you posted this in the Islam section.

Is Islam better supported than Christianity?

Yes, for numerous reasons.
The Quran is more authentic, its compilation was documented by 3rd parties.
On a historical level, the existence of Jesus can be doubted, while the existence of Muhammad cannot, unless you want to challenge this claim.

Well, I'll get the ball rolling:

Play Ball.

Islam makes false claims about the Historical Jesus:

Is the Bible authoritive & historically true in this debate? If so, whats the point of debating ?

1. An actual text supposedly given to Jesus from God, the Injil.

False, False & False.
This is the reason why we muslim folks dont believe in the New Testament.
The Gospel of Jesus was not a book, Jesus didn't go preaching a with a book in his hand did he? The Gospel of Jesus was a revelation of knowledge.
We believe in the Gospel of Jesus, not the Gospel "According to [Insert name Here]

2. Jesus does not die on the Cross

Yes, God did not let him die a disgraceful death on the cross, infact i justified this claim quite well using YOUR scripture, which no one has been able to prove otherwise: Click Here

3. Jesus speaks as a baby in order to rebuke people from slandering Mary.

Jesus resurrects the dead, which one is a greater miracle?
Sorry, but if you're trying to object to the Quranic miracle as "Illogical", then in effect you debunk your entire religion.

Islam makes dubious claims about God:
1. Sin was not a choice of human free will, rather God created the world with sin.

Yes, in Islam, God Knew humans would sin, he had foreknowledge of everything.
Unlike the story of Genesis where God is potrayed as an old man walking around who cant find Adam in the garden of eden (Obviously Adam was better at hide & seek).

2. God's power is limited by Islamic Dogma, God cannot take flesh because Muslims cannot fathom it.

No, God is not restricted.
God simply abides by his own rules.
YOUR Bible is a prime example:

In hope of eternal life, which God, that cannot lie, promised before the world began;
(Titus 1:2)

That by two immutable things, in which it was impossible for God to lie, we might have a strong consolation, who have fled for refuge to lay hold upon the hope set before us:
(Heb 6:18)

Its not honest applying double standards, WinePusher.

Historical problems with the Qur'an:
1. Claimed to have been written by an illiterate.

Not written, that is an oxymoron, 'produced' is the word, the scribes recorded the words of Muhammad(pbuh)

Thats why its such an extraordinary book, its regarded as the "Miracles of Miracles" in Islam. This illiterate man Muhammad produced the most linguistically advanced text in ancient arabia.

2. The Qur'an is considered to be a perfect revelation from God, absolutly free from error, yet the reader can pick apart the book and find error after error and contradiction after contradiction.

Every single alleged contradiction has beeb answered. Yes i repeat, Every single alleged contradiction. CLICK HERE

The Quran does not contain a SINGLE contradiction. Not one, you would be surprised on how well the author Sam Shamoun makes it seem like he's debunked Islam, when infact he has a tendancy of purposely misquoting & twisting certain Quranic verses.

Infact, the Quran mocks the early unbelievers, challenging them to find a contradiction within the Quran:

Will they not, then, try to understand this Qur’an?
Had it issued from any but God, they would surely have found in it many an inner contradictions!
(Quran 4:82)

Unlike the Bible which contains 9 Undeniable Contradictions:

How old was Ahaziah when he began to rule over Jerusalem?
(a) Twenty-two (2 Kings 8:26).
(b) Forty-two (2 Chronicles 22:2).

How old was Jehoiachin when he became king of Jerusalem?
(a) Eighteen (2 Kings 24:8).
(b) Eight (2 Chronicles 36:9).

When David defeated the King of Zobah, how many horsemen did he capture?
(a) One thousand and seven hundred (2 Samuel 8:4).
(b) Seven thousand (1 Chronicles 18:4).

How many stalls for horses did Solomon have?
(a) Forty thousand (1 Kings 4:26).
(b) Four thousand (2 Chronicles 9:25).

In what year of King Asa’’s reign did Baasha, King of Israel die?
(a) Twenty-sixth year (1 Kings 15:33 - 16:8).
(b) Still alive in the thirty-sixth year (2 Chronicles 16:1).

Solomon built a facility containing how many baths?
(a) Two thousand (1 Kings 7:26).
(b) Over three thousand (2 Chronicles 4:5).

Ezra 2:64 and Nehemiah 7:66 agree that the total number of the whole assembly was 42,360. Yet the numbers do not add up to anything close. The totals obtained from each book is as follows:
(a) 29,818 (Ezra).
(b) 31, 089 (Nehemiah).

How many singers accompanied the assembly?
(a) Two hundred (Ezra 2:65).
(b) Two hundred and forty-five (Nehemiah 7:67).

Who killed Goliath?
(a) David (1 Samuel 17:23, 50).
(b) Elhanan (2 Samuel 21:19).

[JoeyKnothead]

From the OP:

Islam makes dubious claims about God:

As do Christians.

Historical problems with the Qur'an:

Historical problems with the Bible:

Unverifiable claims of a miracle producing man-god.


Debating whether the Quran or the Bible is more accurate is like debating whether Harry Potter is more accurate than The Lord of the Rings.

[sleepyhead]

Hello,

Both Islam and Christianity believe our life here on earth is a test that we either pass or fail based on some sort of criteria, therefore, neither one can be supported by logic.

[De Maria]

Please note that this is not meant to be a Q & A session about Islam.

Question: Is Islam better supported than Christianity?

No.

There are two types of evidence which are inadmissible in court.
1. Hearsay
2. Copies of originals which have been maliciously destroyed.
Islam fits both criteria.

First of all, Mohammed had no witnesses to his vision of an angel. No one else saw or heard the angel. Therefore, Mohammed's claim is merely unconfirmed hearsay.
Second, Mohammed never codified his book. After he died, his successors found it in such a shambles that they decided to burn the originals and they substituted their alleged copy which today is known as the Uthmanic recenscion.
Hudhaifa was afraid of their (the people of Sha'm and Iraq) differences in the recitation of the Qur'an, so he said to Uthman, 'O Chief of the Believers! Save this nation before they differ about the Book (Qur'an) as Jews and the Christians did before'. So Uthman sent a message to Hafsa, saying, 'Send us the manuscripts of the Qur'an so that we may compile the Qur'anic materials in perfect copies and return the manuscripts to you'. Hafsa sent It to Uthman. Uthman then ordered Zaid ibn Thabit, Abdullah bin az-Zubair, Sa'id bin al-As, and Abdur-Rahman bin Harith bin Hisham to rewrite the manuscripts in perfect copies. Uthman said to the three Quraishi men, 'In case you disagree with Zaid bin Thabit on any point in the Qur'an, then write it in the dialect of the Quraish as the Qur'an was revealed in their tongue'. They did so, and when they had written many copies, Uthman returned the original manuscripts to Hafsa. Uthman sent to every Muslim province one copy of what they had copied, and ordered that all the other Qur'anic materials, whether written in fragmentary manuscripts or whole copies, be burnt. (Sahih al-Bukhari, Vol. 6, p.479).

So, the case for Islam is composed of evidence which is inadmissible in a court of law today. In fact, it is inadmissible in an Islamic court today.

What about the case for Christianity?
First of all, Matthew is one of Jesus' Apostles. That means that he is Jesus follower and contemporary who witnessed many of Jesus miracles as well as His Resurrection. So, Matthew is an eyewitness. Eyewitness testimony is permitted in court.

Then there's Mark. Mark is Peter's secretary. Also a contemporary of Jesus and one of the disciples who was with the twelve from the beginning. Mark's gospel however, is the penning of Peter's teachings by Mark. So, Mark's Gospel can be considered both eyewitness testimony and substantiation of Matthew's Gospel.

Luke's Gospel is written by a learned man. A physician. Luke however, was not with the twelve from the beginning. He may have witnessed Jesus' resurrection but certainly he witnessed the miracles of the Apostles and of Paul, whose companion he became. These things he wrote about also in his other book, the Acts of the Apostles. So, Luke's Gospel is not eyewitness testimony. It is however, the documentation of eyewitness testimony by an investigator. Luke says so himself:

Luke 1 1 Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a narration of the things that have been accomplished among us; 2 According as they have delivered them unto us, who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word: 3 It seemed good to me also, having diligently attained to all things from the beginning, to write to thee in order, most excellent Theophilus, 4 That thou mayest know the verity of those words in which thou hast been instructed.

And that leaves John. John, of course, is an Apostle of Jesus Christ. He, therefore, is also a contemporary and an eyewitness. John's Gospel was written after the first three, or synoptic Gospels and includes in his Gospel many things which the others ommitted. He also leaves out many things which the others included. Therefore, John's Gospel is eyewitness testimony which substantiates and corroborates the other eyewitnesses.

So, in my opinion, there is much more evidence for the Gospels, and therefore Christianity, than there is for Islam.

Sincerely,

De Maria

[earl]

For me to folow this I need a clarification if you permit it.
Is there a contradiction or a inconsistency here?
Winepusher wrote:Jesus speaks as a baby in order to rebuke prople from slandering Mary.
Murad appeared not to object on the statement .
Are people slandering Mary because they are saying what, Jesus and God are one?
Quran 5.17-In blasphemy indeed are those that say God is christ the son of Mary........
Did Jesus rebuke anyone for saying that he and God are one?
Jesus was charged with blasphemy and killed.Is not Muhammed charging Jesus with the same charge as he calls "those" blasphemers?If Jesus was in Islam territory what then?
If "my Father and I are one" and "God is christ the son of Mary " are not talking about the same relationship then please clarify.Thanks.

[Filthy Tugboat]

What about the case for Christianity?
First of all, Matthew is one of Jesus' Apostles. That means that he is Jesus follower and contemporary who witnessed many of Jesus miracles as well as His Resurrection. So, Matthew is an eyewitness. Eyewitness testimony is permitted in court.

Then there's Mark. Mark is Peter's secretary. Also a contemporary of Jesus and one of the disciples who was with the twelve from the beginning. Mark's gospel however, is the penning of Peter's teachings by Mark. So, Mark's Gospel can be considered both eyewitness testimony and substantiation of Matthew's Gospel.

Luke's Gospel is written by a learned man. A physician. Luke however, was not with the twelve from the beginning. He may have witnessed Jesus' resurrection but certainly he witnessed the miracles of the Apostles and of Paul, whose companion he became. These things he wrote about also in his other book, the Acts of the Apostles. So, Luke's Gospel is not eyewitness testimony. It is however, the documentation of eyewitness testimony by an investigator. Luke says so himself:

Luke 1 1 Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a narration of the things that have been accomplished among us; 2 According as they have delivered them unto us, who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word: 3 It seemed good to me also, having diligently attained to all things from the beginning, to write to thee in order, most excellent Theophilus, 4 That thou mayest know the verity of those words in which thou hast been instructed.

And that leaves John. John, of course, is an Apostle of Jesus Christ. He, therefore, is also a contemporary and an eyewitness. John's Gospel was written after the first three, or synoptic Gospels and includes in his Gospel many things which the others ommitted. He also leaves out many things which the others included. Therefore, John's Gospel is eyewitness testimony which substantiates and corroborates the other eyewitnesses.

So, in my opinion, there is much more evidence for the Gospels, and therefore Christianity, than there is for Islam.

Sincerely,

De Maria

The main problem with this post is that the Gospels authors are unknown. You've asserted that the authors are actually the people who's names are attatched to the Gospels but as far as I'm aware this position lacks evidence, feel free to substantiate.

[De Maria]

The main problem with this post is that the Gospels authors are unknown. You've asserted that the authors are actually the people who's names are attatched to the Gospels but as far as I'm aware this position lacks evidence, feel free to substantiate.

The Catholic Church has a record of each and every writer of the New Testament books. That is where the names come from, from Catholic Tradition.

[WinePusher]

Islam makes false claims about the Historical Jesus:

Is the Bible authoritive & historically true in this debate? If so, whats the point of debating ?

No, the Bible is not authoritative. However, there are facts that we know about the Historical Jesus and the Qur'anic claims about the Historical Jesus are not part of them. For example, what was Muhammed's source? How and where did he get the information about Jesus not dying on the cross and speaking as an infant?

1. An actual text supposedly given to Jesus from God, the Injil.

False, False & False. This is the reason why we muslim folks dont believe in the New Testament. The Gospel of Jesus was not a book, Jesus didn't go preaching a with a book in his hand did he? The Gospel of Jesus was a revelation of knowledge. We believe in the Gospel of Jesus, not the Gospel "According to [Insert name Here].

The injil is an actual text. The problem is Jesus wrote nothing, absolutely nothing while on earth. His teachings were recorded by his disciples and are therefore should be consdiered valid in Islam.

2. Jesus does not die on the Cross.

Yes, God did not let him die a disgraceful death on the cross, infact I justified this claim quite well using YOUR scripture, which no one has been able to prove otherwise: Click Here.

That position runs contrary to the opinions of all historians. Again, Muhammed, the one who makes this claim in the Qur'an, lived several centuries after Jesus so his claim his based on no actual historical evidence. Just revelation, which would be inadmissable as valid evidence. Why would it be necessary to prevent Jesus fom dying if he would be resurrected three days later?

3. Jesus speaks as a baby in order to rebuke people from slandering Mary.

Jesus resurrects the dead, which one is a greater miracle? Sorry, but if you're trying to object to the Quranic miracle as "Illogical", then in effect you debunk your entire religion.

If Jesus did speak as a child, and said something as important about his mother, then I would think that this would have been recorded in the Gospels, whether they are canonical or Gnostic. The problem is the Qur'an has no legitmacy to make any sorts of claims about Jesus because its author wrote several centuries after the existence of Jesus, and its claims lack attestation from other sources.

Islam makes dubious claims about God: 1. Sin was not a choice of human free will, rather God created the world with sin.

Yes, in Islam, God Knew humans would sin, he had foreknowledge of everything. Unlike the story of Genesis where God is potrayed as an old man walking around who cant find Adam in the garden of eden (Obviously Adam was better at hide & seek).

Well then, that portrayal of God is quite crucial and malign in my honest opinion. As I wrote in our head to head debate:

-How absurd, the wages of sin is death, so God created with sin. That doesn't sound like a benevolent God to me, or does Islam not believe God is benevolent. God created us perfect, with free will, and it was by our free will that we sinned. God did not create us with sin or with the intent to committ sin, we brought sin into the world by our own actions.
-So as Christopher Hitchens says, in your mind "God created us sick and orders us to get better on penalty of eternal damnation?"

1) If the penalty for sin is death, then God would have created a world originally free from sin.
2) The wages of sin is death.
3) Therefore, God would have created a world originally free from sin.

2. God's power is limited by Islamic Dogma, God cannot take flesh because Muslims cannot fathom it.

No, God is not restricted. God simply abides by his own rules. YOUR Bible is a prime example:

In hope of eternal life, which God, that cannot lie, promised before the world began;
(Titus 1:2)

That by two immutable things, in which it was impossible for God to lie, we might have a strong consolation, who have fled for refuge to lay hold upon the hope set before us:
(Heb 6:18)

Its not honest applying double standards, WinePusher.

You are equivocating and trying to make it seem that becoming "man" is one in the same as "lying." The verses you cite say that God cannot sin or do anything that would denegrate his perfection, so please concede that it is the subjective opinion of Muslims (and not a theological maxim) that becoming man denegrates God's perfection in some way, shape or form.

Historical problems with the Qur'an: 1. Claimed to have been written by an illiterate.

Not written, that is an oxymoron, 'produced' is the word, the scribes recorded the words of Muhammad(pbuh)

Thats why its such an extraordinary book, its regarded as the "Miracles of Miracles" in Islam. This illiterate man Muhammad produced the most linguistically advanced text in ancient arabia.

"Let the followers of the Gospel judge in accordance with what Allah has revealed therein. Evil doers are those who do not base their judgments on Allah's revelations." Sura 5:47

So, the Gospels claim that Jesus was God along with the claim that Jesus was crucified and resurrected. If we reject these claims, we are going againist what your holy book says and therefore violating Allah's undefiled law. However, the Qur;an also claims that "God's word is perfect" and Muslims believe that the Gospel, along with the Torah and Psalms are God's word.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 9:

...However, there are facts that we know about the Historical Jesus...

Please present such facts in the thread I've set up for the purpose of examining this claim.